Testimony of Sal Peralta on SB 1083 to the Senate Committee on elections and Ethics, (remarks as prepared for delivery)

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Madame chair,

Distinguished Senators, my name is Sal Peralta. I am speaking here today as chief petitioner on Initiative Petition 3 (2010), as the owner of a business that works on initiative petitioning, and as an Oregon elector.

I have been following the Secretary of State's implementation of the various rules and regulations that pertain to Oregon's Initiative and Referendum system.

I note that the liabilities for circulating initiative petitions in Oregon have increased, along with disclosure requirements that include total transparency with regard to financial records including attaching employee time cards to copies of signature sheets.

I recognize the importance of such disclosures in regulating the initiative process, in light of past abuses, and agree that the State has an interest in preserving the integrity of Oregon's Initiative and Referendum system.

I would argue, however, that preserving the integrity of the Oregon System also involves the creation of assurances for petitioners that guard against everything from honest mistakes to hyper-partisanship, to corruption or the appearance of corruption, as it relates to the signature verification process.

I support the idea of moving more of the processing of initiative petitions in to the Secretary of State's office.

From the standpoint of an initiative petitioner, this bill would dramatically streamline the process, improve customer service, and would allow petitioners the benefit of working with specialists who better understand the rules and regulations surrounding the handling of initiative petitions than is currently the case. My experience with the clerks is that some, including Multnomah, Yamhill County, and others are very knowledgeable whereas others have much less experience or resources to handle initiative petitions.

I have not yet seen the fiscal impacts of this bill, but I told by our county clerk that signature verification is not a major process for them, and it would seem that streamlining these operations makes financial sense.

My personal experiences with the Secretary of State's office have always been positive. I have never been treated with anything other than courtesy and respect by professional staff at the office. The people who deal with initiative petitions, or any aspect of electioneering, have consistently been willing and capable in their efforts to administer the State's implementations of these basic instruments of our democracy.

However, the concentration of this degree of power into the purview of one office makes it essential, in order to guard against corruption, or the appearance of corruption, that this body also adopt safeguards to preserve the rights of petitioners, and that recognizes basic due process claims on the part of valid electors who are selected as part of the statistical sampling used by the Secretary of State.

The standalone amendment that we have asked to be included in this bill is rather straightforward.

The Amendment reads:

The Secretary of State shall allow a qualified elector who is selected as part of the statistical sample, but whose signature is rejected during the signature verification process, to affirm the signature's authenticity for the purposes of determining whether a state initiative or referendum petition qualifies for the ballot.

Notice must be sent to the disqualified elector within 10 days.

I'd like to note a few things about this amendment:

1) It does not elevate the rights of a valid elector who signs an initiative petition to that of voter. We still use the state's random sampling system.

2) This amendment only applies to people who have their signature rejected if they are valid electors who are part of the state's random sample.

3) There is already in statute a time period for contesting the count on an initiative petition and a process set up for doing so.

The state has a compelling interest in providing this remedy.

The job of the Secretary of State is to ensure the integrity of the process. To leave the office open to charges of corruption or the appearance of corruption is to fail to protect the integrity of the process. Right now, Oregon electors have no guarantee against their signatures being wrongly excluded, or excluded for political reasons during the signature verification process, and the decision of the Secretary of State and the clerks is not open to review.

The State has already acknowledged that there is an interest in "not getting it wrong" when it comes to signature verification. Their signature expert testified in Lemons that they accept more marginal signatures than they reject.

I can see no compelling reason to not offer remedy to valid electors who signed petitions in good faith and had their signatures wrongfully excluded.

I am thankful to the federal judge has drawn attention to this flaw in Oregon law. I am thankful to Senator Walker for recognizing the importance of these protections. And will be thankful to Senator Brown and the rest of this committee if you move this bill forward and encourage passage as amended.

If there is a cost objection to notifying a few hundred electors who may have had their signatures removed as part of the verification process used by the state in random sampling, then I encourage the committee to drop the language requiring 10-day notification by the Secretary of State's office while keeping the remainder of the amendment intact.

Thank you for hearing my testimony. I will now try to answer any questions you may have.